In light of the tremendous effort during the Tsunami tragedy, I would now like to know what the 1st world citizens (yes that's probably you too) are doing about the tragic deaths in 3rd world countries.
50 000 people are dying every day due to starvation around the world. That is 18 million two hundred and firty thousand people each year, or almost half the population of the UK.
1st world countries such as the USA and UK subsidise their farmers. This enables these countries to sell their agriculture at lower rates that 3rd world countries. There seems little point teaching a man to fish, when you sell your fish at much lower prices than he can afford to sell his produce. Yet the USA and UK pride themselves in providing internation aid, aid which they also expect to be paid back in debt, a debt 3rd world countries cannot afford to pay.
The US spends 3.9bn dollars (£2.3bn) a year subsidising its 25,000 cotton farmers - more than the entire GDP for Burkina Faso where 2 million people depend on cotton for their livelihood. Europe is now the world's second largest sugar exporter even though EU sugar costs twice as much to produce as does that of Third World peasants.
http://www.britainusa.com/sections/articles_show.asp?SarticleType=1&Article_ID=6311&i=145
How can you support fair trade ?
http://www.maketradefair.com/en/index.htm
Originally posted by pcaspianI always vote socialist.
In light of the tremendous effort during the Tsunami tragedy, I would now like to know what the 1st world citizens (yes that's probably you too) are doing about the tragic deaths in 3rd world countries.
50 000 people are dying every day due to starvation around the world. That is 18 million two hundred and firty thousand people each year, or almost half ...[text shortened]... _ID=6311&i=145
How can you support fair trade ?
http://www.maketradefair.com/en/index.htm
I am, however, willing to start a revolution if anyone cares join me.
Originally posted by sasquatch672OK, so how exactly are us lefty types supposed to respond to you when you write a post like that? You say you want to pay the minimum taxation possible and to put American interests first at all times; you certainly don't want to pay out to help those 'poor bastards' not fortunate enough to have been born in the US...
Here's the thing. The world is not a fair place. Alot of people who get on here and bash the US seem to want some kind of utopian world government where disease, war, famine, pestilence, and the other things that cause death and misery don't exist. That would be nice. But it's one thing for a futurist author to wrote about a world like that, and ...[text shortened]... ko. Why should I work to make his life better? I already do. You want more of my paycheck?
Well OK, this is because you are not a very nice person. You may not have realised this before; you may have thought you were maybe alright. But you're not. You fall down on the most basic of aspects of niceness, which is to be willing to sacrifice some of your own comfort for others. Hey, this isn't a novel idea. You mention God. You've got a Bible right? It's all in there. Ever wondered what it might feel like to have a conscience?
Rich.
Originally posted by sasquatch672
I can guarantee that I'll find some posts from you talking about how bad the US invasion of Iraq is. The US is trying to right a wrong much more significant than cotton subsidies there, but I'm sure you've railed against that ad nauseum.
I tripple dare you. Find that post. It will be a long fruitless search I can tell you.
You are proposing a concept that, taken to its logical extension, goes beyond socialism and approaches pure communism. The world will never work that way. If you don't give men a reason to work hard, they won't. People work hard because they can be rewarded in some fashion for their hard work.
Free trade is a concept which supports capitalism. Subsidising US agriculture so it can dominate the market should be illegal, as simply as that. That is a similar tactic to Starbucks, which sets up 2 or 3 stores in an area they know can only economically sustain one store, however once the opponent bankrupts, they remove their other stores and voila, they've won the market. This is not fair trade, it is dirty politics and should nothing be done about it, it simply undermines the effectiveness of the capitalist system.
Have you ever been to a communist country? I have, to a few. I was shocked by the drab architecture, by the dirtiness and grittiness of the places, by the looks of resignation and acceptance on the faces of the people who lived there, by the tangible disavowment of God, willingly or otherwise. They were drab, hopeless places, where the next day held no promise and where the day before held no happiness.
Communism in principle is an admirable system, however as we all know, we're not willing to work harder, if not for the big buck. That is why it failed. Capitalism however is successfull in the USA because it blatantly ignores international interests and aims only at profit maximisation for it's one people. It is flawed as it depends on someone losing out, in this case, the poorer nations.
Our government has decided that it's in our interest to retain an agricultural capacity, and I tend to agree with them. And if that means some poor bastard in central America can't sell his crops, that's just the way it is, bucko. Why should I work to make his life better? I already do. You want more of my paycheck?
This has nothing to do with your paycheck. This simply has to do with international bullying. It is your father subsidising your lemonade stand so you can sell your produce at 20% cheaper than the guy next to you. Once he's out the picture and you own the entire market share, you repay your debt and increase your prices. It's a silly policy and flawed. The USA also chooses not to sign the Kyoto agreement. EVERYONE realises we need to cut down on destroying the planet, EXCEPT one nation, the USA. Your attitude is one of ignoring charity ! Let 50 000 people die each day because it is in our interest , but lets cry about 2 000 Americans on 9/11 ??? C'mon, you can't be that selfish. No-one is asking the USA for aid, they are simply asking the USA not to cheat in international economics. In the private sector, selling produce as a sub par cost simply to eliminate your opponent is illegal. The same should apply to international economics.
pc
Originally posted by sasquatch672"...it's one thing for a futurist author to wrote about a world like that, and it's quite another to bring it into existence."
Here's the thing. The world is not a fair place. Alot of people who get on here and bash the US seem to want some kind of utopian world government where disease, war, famine, pestilence, and the other things that cause death and mis ...[text shortened]... his life better? I already do. You want more of my paycheck?
You're already living in a "futrist author's world".
Just as you've learnt new wonders such as antibiotics, you learn new horrors such as AIDS. It's naive to think "disease, war, famine, pestilence" cant be eradicated, just as it is naive to think there wont always be other, possibly worse, things to come along.
I should know, not only am I from the future, I'm over 400 earth years old...
"(iraq) The US is trying to right a wrong much more significant than cotton subsidies there."
More important than Burkina Faso's problems? Well ok, fair enough...but more important than 18 million deaths a year? Whether or not you are right, I certainly dont think highly of your attempt to downplay the plight of the 3rd world...
"I expect my politicians to...blah blah...and make things better for tax-paying Americans first, then for the poor unwashed masses who did not have the good fortune to be born a United States citizen."
Are you ok with them making things better for you at the expense of the "poor unwashed masses"?
"You are proposing a concept that,.."
What proposal?
"...taken to its logical extension, goes beyond socialism and approaches pure communism."
If I knew what "proposed concept" you were on about this might make some kind of sense.
So I'm not sure what you're on about here, but this...
"This time, you railed about government intervention in the form of farm subsidies. Our government has decided that it's in our interest to retain an agricultural capacity, and I tend to agree with them. And if that means some poor bastard in central America can't sell his crops, that's just the way it is, bucko."
...takes some kind of biscuit!
By extension, it is reasonable to suppose that it is in africa's best interest to retain an agricultural capacity. Undermining that capacity makes you their enemy, which isn't a good idea for your self-interest...
Mind you, this is a perfect example of one flaw in capitalism, some things aren't for sale, but capitalism demands that everything must have a price...
MÅ¥HÅRM
Originally posted by sasquatch672Well said!!!! You get my rec! 😵
Here's the thing. The world is not a fair place. Alot of people who get on here and bash the US seem to want some kind of utopian world government where disease, war, famine, pestilence, and the other things that cause death and misery don't exist. That would be nice. But it's one thing for a futurist author to wrote about a world like that, and ...[text shortened]... ko. Why should I work to make his life better? I already do. You want more of my paycheck?
Originally posted by richhoeyFirst of all, I don't believe sasquatch means to leave these poor thirdworld people behind, but in order to help the thirdworld, the firstworld should expect these countries to meet us halfway, so to speak, and that means curbing their birthrates, stop burning their rain forests, coaxing the Africans to wear condoms to prevent AIDS, which eats up billions of dollars which could be used for food...see, you 'lefties' think throwing $$ at world problems is the solution, but in reality correcting the problem at the source, as I described above, is the way to do it...THEN, and only THEN, will we be more than willing to toss $$ and/or aid-debt-forgiveness their way...
OK, so how exactly are us lefty types supposed to respond to you when you write a post like that? You say you want to pay the minimum taxation possible and to put American interests first at all times; you certainly don't want to pay out to help those 'poor bastards' not fortunate enough to have been born in the US...
Well OK, this is because you are ...[text shortened]... ht? It's all in there. Ever wondered what it might feel like to have a conscience?
Rich.
Originally posted by pcaspianLook here dude, do you take into account the private generosity of the American people?...if not, then I suggest that you do because you will find that we are a generous people....put you $$ where your mouth is...ðŸ˜
Originally posted by sasquatch672
[b]
I can guarantee that I'll find some posts from you talking about how bad the US invasion of Iraq is. The US is trying to right a wrong much more significant than cotton subsidies there, but I'm sure you've railed against that ad nauseum.
I tripple dare you. Find that post. It will be a long fruitles ...[text shortened]... y to eliminate your opponent is illegal. The same should apply to international economics.
pc[/b]
Originally posted by chancremechanic
First of all, I don't believe sasquatch means to leave these poor thirdworld people behind, but in order to help the thirdworld, the firstworld should expect these countries to meet us halfway, so to speak, and that means curbing their birthrates, stop burning their rain forests, coaxing the Africans to wear condoms to prevent AIDS, which eats up billions of dollars which could be used for food...see, you 'lefties' think throwing $$ at world problems is the solution, but in reality correcting the problem at the source, as I described above, is the way to do it...THEN, and only THEN, will we be more than willing to toss $$ and/or aid-debt-forgiveness their way...
(this avatar is not a pic of me btw...)
Meeting 1st World countries half way, would mean allowing 3rd world countries to help themselves. The key to this is to allow "free trade". Without free trade there is 'NOTHING' but natural resources to sell off to 1st world countries. The key is to allow the farmer to work for his income, to be able to sell his produce on the international market free of US interference. There is absolutely no point of helping a 3rd world country, when you are the primary reason they need help in the first place. People don't want handouts, they want to be able to earn their own income.
Originally posted by shavixmirLOL
I always vote socialist.
I am, however, willing to start a revolution if anyone cares join me.
I love it. Your idea of doing good is to give away "other peoples" hard earned money. That is just classic.
Kind of takes the fun out of doing good, doesn't it? I mean... if I give away MY money, I get a certain satisfaction. How does you giving away my money make you happy?
svw gathers himself from the floor... tries to see shavy enraptured at the thought that he gave away another persons hard earned money... knowing that he relies on that same pilfer to survive.
In a really perverted way... I see your point. You do vote to give away your "entitlement".
Originally posted by chancremechanicI agree we need to tackle the problem at source, but one of the key underlying problems is the massives subsidies that Europe and the US give to our farmers, which have prevented developing countries from being able to compete in the international market. This is one of the problems which sasquatch specifically decided he had no interest in addressing, which is why I decided to judge him - and rebuke him - on the face value of his post. You may well be right that he's not as bad as all that, and doesn't really want to leave the developing world behind, but he wasn't demonstrating it back there.
First of all, I don't believe means to leave these poor thirdworld people behind, but in order to help the third world, the firstworld should expect these countries to meet us halfway, so to speak, and that means curbing their birthrates, stop burning their rain forests, coaxing the Africans to wear condoms to prevent AIDS, which eats up billions of ...[text shortened]... and only THEN, will we be more than willing to toss $$ and/or aid-debt-forgiveness their way...
As for your other suggestions... well as I've mentioned before, the birthrate will come down (and it will) as soon as people have education, real prospects and are relatively free of disease. It won't happen before that, much as it might be a good thing for all concerned if it did.
On the rainforest...there is nothing in the world (apart from global warming and mass disease perhaps) that depresses me more than the destruction of the rainforest. God are we going to kick ourselves when it's all gone. Problem is, we in the developed world did exactly the same as these countries are doing now. There's barely a patch of forest left in the UK - the whole country used to be covered in a blanket of trees. So we're in no position to preach. All we can do is provide, yes I'm sorry, financial assistance for conservation and even better make it more profitable to keep the trees, through supporting ecotourism and perhaps plant-based drug discovery.
On condoms... well you're right here, but don't forget catholics are still preaching against condoms, and the US Government prefers abstinence, so there's a few conflicting messages flying around.
The biggest thing that Africa in particular needs to tackle, although with our help, is the systematic corruption in many Governments there.
Ultimately though, if you really care about developing countries, you cannot wait for them to meet you halfway. They never will - they simply can't afford it.
Rich.
Originally posted by richhoeyI agree with some of your above post Rich.
Ultimately though, if you really care about developing countries, you cannot wait for them to meet you halfway. They never will - they simply can't afford it.
Rich.
I am in a mellow mood. Instead of taking you to task I will pursue the thought of the day.
Why can't they simply "afford" it?
Ok. they can't "afford" it because they expect the world to pay their rights of survival.
Where is it written "except in religion" that we must support the stupid and the inept?
Yet you make fun of religion and poo-poo the notion that people can and do support the inept.
Why? Why do people support the inept?
See govt. workers. Snark.